I have a problem with counting government transfer payments, and most government bureaucracy, as part of GDP. It ignores the opportunity cost of taking money out of the economy to support those payments. We will never cut government spending back if economists whine about the cost to GDP, even though that spending can hardly be deemed productive.

12:27 pm October 2, 2012

NN wrote:

What about crack heads?

12:29 pm October 2, 2012

Steve wrote:

"any government spending, whether it’s on safety-net-related benefits, military contracts or new infrastructure, is helpful because it technically boosts GDP growth ."
BS Flag raised. That money spent has to come from somewhere, and that takes money that could be spent (or invested into a new business that would than spend out that money to build its business. Government spending is a zero sum game in the long run.

12:34 pm October 2, 2012

adel wrote:

Both Bush Sr.and Jr have a life-time dole from Uncle Sam. I Don't mind Sr. on the dole but jr should have enough from support by big-banls, insurance industry, health care lobbiests and hedge fund mamagers to be self-supporting.

12:46 pm October 2, 2012

John wrote:

"these 2,362 Americans already paid for this insurance when they paid their taxes. "

Nonsense. Unemployment insurance is paid by companies on rates set by the state and federal government. Individuals do not pay umemployment insurance other than it is the cost of stuff they buy. If this article cannot get this simple fact right, what is else is wrong with this article?

12:54 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Here it comes... the restructuring of "insurance" as "transfers".

So what if you pay $700 per year for your car insurance? You got in a crash and your household income is $200K; pay for it yourself. Do you think that would make sense?

But substitute "Soc Security" or "Medicare" or "Unemployment Insurance" in that sentence and somehow it does make sense?

12:54 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Unemployment insurance for "MILLIONAIRES"? Heck no! Nor should they be able to drive on public roads, breath the public air or enjoy our national parks! Only the "poor and middle-class" should enjoy the fruits of their own labor...(Sarcasm Alert!)

12:57 pm October 2, 2012

Matt wrote:

Would companies get to avoid paying the "insurance premiums" for these people? If not, I think we'd better stop calling it "insurance," and instead call it "welfare."

1:00 pm October 2, 2012

Think about it wrote:

If they paid for they should get it.

The better question: Is it right to take anyone's work without their consent? No. That is called slavery.

There should not be any government programs requiring the converting the beneift of my work to someone else. I should decide who gets the benefit of my work.

Otherwise, eventually, people will stop working. Maybe that is happening already. Why work if more and more of your effort is stolen and given to people that you don't know and you have no idea if they're using your effort in a positive manner.

1:01 pm October 2, 2012

Jeff wrote:

Millionaires do get other entitlements, social security, medicare, SANP. This is another form of welfare but it goes to wealthy.

1:03 pm October 2, 2012

To Think About It wrote:

Have you considered joining the War Resisters League? Joni Mitchell, I think, did what you espouse, and withheld taxes that went to support the war in Vietnam. She eventually paid and got a press release out of it.

1:07 pm October 2, 2012

Think about it wrote:

@ Matt

Yes, a lot of what is called insurance these days is actually extortion. A better name for "welfare" is forced charity, which is theft.

Theft of work has created a misallocation of resources in addition to a disconnect from reality for many people.

1:08 pm October 2, 2012

realist wrote:

Any Millionaire that can't perform well in their investments to the point where UI benefits wouldn't put them over the tax bracket, I'm sorry they fail at life. This isn't capitalism, this is just more evidence that the cream didn't rise to the top in this country.

1:11 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Opportunity costs make it hinder GDP growth

1:12 pm October 2, 2012

Think about it wrote:

@To Think About It

I did not say don't pay taxes. What could be inferred from what I said is that some taxes are bad. Or that taxes should have a voluntary quality to them. Etc. etc. Not quite the same thing at all.

1:18 pm October 2, 2012

Fix it wrote:

99 weeks of unemployment benefits? Well there's the problem. How about after 3 months max, people who receive unemployment benefits must go to a vocational/ trade school in order to keep receiving unemployment for the rest of the duration. Therefore, they can still sustain themselves for awhile while going to school to gain a new skill set that will help them obtain a new job that is in demand.

1:18 pm October 2, 2012

Think about it wrote:

@ realist

Yes, we do not have capitalism in this country. Capitalism requires freedom. Central planning and massive regulation is the ust the opposite.

What is compatible with central planning and endless rules? Think about it ;)

From the looks of thinigs, I think the cream may be waiting until its wanted again.

1:19 pm October 2, 2012

Similar Unfairness wrote:

You pay the taxes, you should get the UEC. But in my state, there's already a big loophole. If you own, or part own, a business that folds, you get nothing. The rationale is the owner who strategically plots to cripple his company shouldn't benefit. However, that ignores the far more common situation where the owner, typically a small business person, has tried his hardest to keep the company afloat, only to be done in by circumstances outside his control. Not fair, nor is this.

1:22 pm October 2, 2012

Michael wrote:

"the government shouldn’t be wasting its dough on millionaires"
"its dough"?!?! Really??!! Who's "dough" is it? That money came form the taxpayer as an insurance premium. He shouldn't be punished because he is successful. If the gov is suffering from the effects of a spending binge, dont balance it on the backs of those who pay taxes.

1:26 pm October 2, 2012

Why not? wrote:

Money was paid into the sytem to cover them, so they should get the benefits?

Why do we allow people to be unemployed anyway? From what I know, during the 30's people didn't sit at home and collect a check. To be "on the dole" they had to join work parties and actually do something like build roads. Why don't we make actual work a condition of unemployment, even if it is as simple aas showing up at 9am every weekday to go pick up litter along the highway? If you have $1mil in the bank or $0, same orange vest and same work crew. Those who don't actually need the assistance would drop off the rolls along with those who don't deserve it.

1:27 pm October 2, 2012

fair share wrote:

No more fare share when talking about benefit, are we?

1:29 pm October 2, 2012

hey now wrote:

Here it comes. Insurance, social safety net now becomes redistribution.

Means test social security, yada yada. You fool why did you save.

1:36 pm October 2, 2012

More to this... wrote:

My first reaction is why the heck are they getting it..... But I have to go back to the one word in it title..
That is "Insurance", it doesn't matter if you make $35,000 or multi millions. If you pay for insurance and
you have a claim, then you have a right to be paid. It is the same for car, life, or any other insurance. You don't pay car insurance for years, then not make a claim when you get into a fender-bender.

1:36 pm October 2, 2012

Mike N. wrote:

Why do millionaires need financial assistance when they have plenty of cash (and wealthy pals) to rely on?

If I'm expected to ask my pals for assistance when I need it, why don't I just form a pool with them instead of paying into the state fund?

Also, why allow seasonal workers that earn their full pay in the summer and use the winter to go hunting collect from the fund while hunting?

1:37 pm October 2, 2012

T Simpson wrote:

How about we make a distinction between regular UIC, which is short term and for which people and/or their employers pay insurance premiums and should therefore be able to collect regardless of economic status and the extentions that have been granted during this economic 'emergency'? The extentions should be targeted to people who really need the money and should require household means tests as well as a higher level of effort in the job seeking arena perhaps including some retraining or education.

To me the outrage is that someone who has a spouse earning plenty of money can simply sit there and get two years of extended benefits he did not pay for. It is pathetically easy to meet the job search requirements with a few mouse clicks per week. No wonder the deficit has exploded and the unemployment rate has not declined.

1:42 pm October 2, 2012

Anon wrote:

This argument glosses over a few things, though. First, these 2,362 Americans already paid for this insurance when they paid their taxes. They also paid taxes expecting to receive Social Security retirement benefits in the future — should they forgo those, too?

Both unemployment and Social Security should be means tested. Neither are savings accounts. Taxes are collected and benefits are paid as transfer payments. Everyone could make the same argument and the system would collapse. Unemployment benefits are meant to be a buffer to help the transition between unemployment spells. Millionaires don't need the buffer payment.

1:42 pm October 2, 2012

Employer wrote:

"First, these 2,362 Americans already paid for this insurance when they paid their taxes" No they did not.
The employer pays 100% of unemployment (employment security) taxes.

1:46 pm October 2, 2012

Maggie J. wrote:

@ T Simpson: you make a really good point here. The only UI that employees actually "pay into" is the regular state trust fund which allows for only 26 weeks of UI benefits in nearly every state. Only a couple states (PA is one of them) actually deduct $ from a workers' check, the rest is a tax paid only by the employer (but of course the employer adjusts the employees' wages to reflect this cost so workers do "pay" indirectly). The federal emergency benefits are the ones that are funded solely by the federal government and I think means testing these benefits based on household income makes sense.

1:47 pm October 2, 2012

JPM wrote:

Matt got it right - if the benefits won't be paid to millionaires, then companies should not have to pay the tax on their salaries.

1:49 pm October 2, 2012

Mark wrote:

They could contain this number if they didn't extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks which makes it look a lot like welfare to me.

1:50 pm October 2, 2012

Question wrote:

Why do we pay 99 full weeks? Why not 99% in week one, 98% in week two, 97% in week three, etc. The unemployed would still get 99 weeks but the cost of the stamp in week 99 would be larger than the check.

1:51 pm October 2, 2012

Bob Holton wrote:

@John-you said:"Nonsense. Unemployment insurance is paid by companies on rates set by the state and federal government."
Sort of. As a tax on the purchase of any labor, an employer has to pay a certain amount, typically based on typical usage of unemployment benefits. The tax is neither on the employer or on the employee, but on the transaction. As the employer looks on it as a cost of hiring an employee, they don't care whether that money is paid to the state or the employee. The employee as a reduction in the effective vlaue of their labor. So, economically, almost all of the cost of unemployment insurance is borne by the worker. This is a little less true of the extended benefits, but is quite true of initial claims.

1:55 pm October 2, 2012

DonS wrote:

Hmmm- isn't those same millionaires who pay a majority of federal and probably state income taxes ?

And paid taxes on their earnings ? and pay double taxes on dividends and interest income?

How about the 40 percent plus who pay no fede taxes, but do pay state and local taxes. and taxes on whatever income they make

lets face it - our system is a mess -

1:58 pm October 2, 2012

OMGWTFECONOMICSBBQ wrote:

"Finally, from an economist’s point of view, any government spending, whether it’s on safety-net-related benefits, military contracts or new infrastructure, is helpful because it technically boosts GDP growth"

NO. From an economist's point of view, there is no free lunch. That spending comes from taxing the productive economy. If it's not at least as productive as the rest of the economy, it's money better off not spent.

1:58 pm October 2, 2012

Stentor wrote:

This is what is coming. As a middle-class of upper middle class person you are expected to pay all of the freight when it comes to Unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, Self-Employment etc etc payroll taxes. However when it comes your turn to collect on these things you have paid into (or paid a LOT into) you will be "means tested" out of them. These are being run less like insurance programs and more like redistributionist vote buying scams all the time.

1:59 pm October 2, 2012

fairness wrote:

obviously not!

2:03 pm October 2, 2012

Ed W. wrote:

As the name implies on the list of deductions on your check stub: SUI is State Unemployment Insurance. You are receiving benefit for the premiums paid into the system and NOT a kindness from your fellow taxpayers. The continued incitement of class warfare by the political classes has got to stop! We are all on the same team. Coburn seems to think that someone who works l hard and choose to live frugally to save for the future should be punished for having done so; And those that never save for the rainy day should be handed an umbrella. Aesop told it best in the Grasshopper and the Ant so when will society stop giving it up the butt to the Ants and start chastising the Grasshoppers?

2:05 pm October 2, 2012

Kevin West wrote:

Haven't perused any of the other responses for this bit but the answer is s**t no and I am worth plenty. Not taking Medicare or Social Security either and that includes the Affordable Health Act. Anybody with wealth or assets that sticks their head in the trough out to be taken out and slapped around the back of the shed.

2:09 pm October 2, 2012

Steve wrote:

I can't imagine being a millionaire and actually applying to receive unemployment payments. Something in my moral compass would identify that as just plain wrong. Perhaps these are the same folks who are busy planning their estates so that they will qualify for Medicaid.

2:13 pm October 2, 2012

Mike wrote:

The wealthy receiving UIC don't think of it as Unemployment Insurance. After all, I would venture to speculate that most people in the millionaire status that "qualify" for unemployment, are self-employed. They either owned businesses previously, or consulted as independent contractors. They are simply clawing-back what is theirs...call it a taxback. When the government stopped posting budgets and moved the nation into profligate spending by the majority, off the backs of the few...the rules of tax-conscience changed. They're simply taking back money that would otherwise pay for some bureaucrat-schmuck to sip champagne in a Las Vegas hot tub. No more guilt.

2:27 pm October 2, 2012

Doug wrote:

Uunemployment insurance should be a safety net, not an entitlement and not a "stimulus" pmt.

Borrowing money to pay today's daily expenses is bad for a household and bad from goverment.

This is bread and butter economics. Come on people!!

2:31 pm October 2, 2012

NO wrote:

What a scurrilous article.

I would expect to read this type of misinformation in the NY Times. The author should review economic ideas of Laffer for ideas on how to grow GDP.

2:31 pm October 2, 2012

JuliaB wrote:

The current system is not means tested. If these people are entitled to unemployment and paid into the system then they should receive it After all, did they not pay the majority of the taxes anyway? If it weren't for these folks then how would the 40% who pay nothing get their cash? Can't have it both ways.

2:32 pm October 2, 2012

EJ Moosa wrote:

So why would you collect from someone money as insurance and then refuse to cover the claim?

It's time we removed the word "insurance" from any government administered program. It's turned out to be nothing like insurance in the private sector.

2:34 pm October 2, 2012

Chip wrote:

What about that whopper in the next to last paragraph? Economists say that government spending drives net GDP growth and that the economy has lagged because government hasn't been spending enough?! Let's borrow and spend our way to fabulous wealth...Holey Schnikey!

2:34 pm October 2, 2012

Andrew wrote:

The correct answer is: There should be no unemployment insurance. Individuals should save for their own hard times, not depend on others to support them.

2:35 pm October 2, 2012

BustyBob wrote:

So let me see, here. If I make money and become successful and lose my job, then I'm on my own, So the message here is: Be a failure and stay mediocre and collect all the free government stuff. Sounds like a plan to me!

2:41 pm October 2, 2012

mustang wrote:

Sounds a lot like Marxist class warfare has finally arrived. "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" has become the mantra of the present administration.

2:44 pm October 2, 2012

mustang wrote:

As a matter of information the only money paid into the unemployment system is paid by the employers. There are no individual contributions.

2:56 pm October 2, 2012

Todd wrote:

I can’t imagine being a millionaire and actually applying to receive unemployment payments.

If you're a millionaire and your house burns down are you going to call State Farm or are you just going to pay out of pocket. I can't imagine paying premiums all those years and then not making a claim. That's just plain foolish.

2:56 pm October 2, 2012

jmhcpa wrote:

"First, these 2,362 Americans already paid for this insurance when they paid their taxes."

I'm pretty sure that the EMPLOYER pays for Unemployment Insurance, NOT the worker.

2:58 pm October 2, 2012

Todd wrote:

As a matter of information the only money paid into the unemployment system is paid by the employers

Economically, the employee's salary is lower than it would otherwise be by the amount equal to UI premium paid by the employer.

2:59 pm October 2, 2012

Todd wrote:

I’m pretty sure that the EMPLOYER pays for Unemployment Insurance, NOT the worker.

Economically, the employee’s salary is lower than it would otherwise be by the amount equal to UI premium paid by the employer.

3:01 pm October 2, 2012

Anon wrote:

If they meet the requirements and the tax for it was paid, then if they earned it, they should receive it.

3:06 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, the statement that any government spending is beneficial to GDP growth is incorrect. In calculating GDP, transfers (social security benefits, unemployment, etc) are not included, something that is taught in basic high school economics classes, and which a simple google search would prove to be false.

3:10 pm October 2, 2012

Jbog wrote:

Should the well off benefit from health insurance, life insurance, flood insurance or auto insurance? Of course they should as long as they pay the proper premiums.

We can talk about holding back government payments for Medicare, Unemployment, Disability and Social Security once we re-classify those benefits as assistance rather than 'insurance'.

3:11 pm October 2, 2012

SeattleInvestor wrote:

If they paid for it, they get it, period. Otherwise, allow them to opt out of payments and benefits.

Otherwise, its just another government welfare program to tax them and transfer the money to others if they don't get the benefits.

Another question, how much does the program lose if they are allowed to opt out?

3:12 pm October 2, 2012

Barack Obama wrote:

Social Security should no longer be considered an entitlement. It is not a savings account anymore than income tax is a savings account. It should be a contribution to a separate Federal account that is used to pay Social Security benefits to individuals. There should be no upper bound on how much is paid in each year, by the individual or the employer. However, there should be a maximum amount paid out to any individual per year, as a "safety net" for standard retirement needs.

3:13 pm October 2, 2012

SeattleInvestor wrote:

I love the comments from the idiots who claim the employer paid for the insurance, not the employee. I assume these people are not subscribers to WSJ since their understanding of economics is so primitive.

3:14 pm October 2, 2012

Recovering CPA wrote:

The article first refers to "millionaires" as those earning a $1 million per year. In the next sentence the implication is someone with a $1 million in the bank. What about someone with a home worth $1 million?

These are distinctions even a first semester bookkeeping student should comprehend. If "Real Time Economics" can't understand the difference, is it any wonder that the social workers and college professors in congress and the white house are making such a mess of things.

Finally, it is worth noting that at current savings account rates, the interest on $1 million in the bank is about $200 per month. However, this would lead to a discussion of the mess being made by the Fed. Too depressing...

3:16 pm October 2, 2012

Nancy Pelosi wrote:

If people die with no spouse, there is no longer any benefits paid. By allowing LGBT marriage, the spousal benefit can continue.

3:18 pm October 2, 2012

Joe insurance wrote:

It should be looked at like insurance. If you buy auto or home owners insurance - you don't get your premiums back just because you have not filed any claims!

3:31 pm October 2, 2012

Mike C wrote:

employees such as construction workers may regularly make over $100,000 every year working 8,9 or 10months for example and get paid Unemplyment benefits for the monthys they are aoff every year. They get the high wages because they only work 8 or nine months out of the year. This has turned into a supplemental income program not true benefits for those actually enemployed. No wonder the program is under fiscal challenges. This is not right.

3:32 pm October 2, 2012

Joan Haggerty wrote:

Why not, you have paid into the fund all of the years that you have worked.
It's your money you earned it to do as you please with the money.

3:34 pm October 2, 2012

duh wrote:

Insurance. That word explains everything.:-)

3:34 pm October 2, 2012

Joseph Roediger wrote:

Why don't we reverse SS benifits. For example; people being paid poverty wages pay nothing, remove the cap and require all salaries pay 15% total contrbution. 7.5 from individual and 7.5 from their firms. Make all the sence in the world to me. No one deserves or needs to make 500 million a year. JFR

3:43 pm October 2, 2012

Sam wrote:

Hmmm ... if I was looking for savings, should I go after 2,362 people who are being given aid per the rules of the program or should I look at the 1 Million+ others drawing UIC for some potential fraud?

I have a hunch that maybe 1% or more of all the UIC payments are not appropriate -- that would be 4 or 5 times as many people as the "millionaires" (this may be the 20 yr kid of a small business owner who got laid off but now lives at home).

Things get tricky when you start down this path

3:47 pm October 2, 2012

Just Saying wrote:

The premium I pay for my one employee (my on-the-books nanny) went up this year because of the high level of claims. I have been an employer for 4 years and have never laid anyone off or fired anyone.

It's ridiculous to means test unemployment benefits when the benefit is capped. If everyone pays the tax implicitly through lower wages from their employer, isn't it punitive to make the benefit available only to some? Doesn't this violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

3:52 pm October 2, 2012

Redistribution Retribution wrote:

As all insurance turns into income redistribution, as all taxes turn into income redistribution, as all benefits from hard work and good planning turn into income redistribution, the only long-term position is Atlas Shrugged.

3:54 pm October 2, 2012

Captain America wrote:

The proletariat among our bloggers appear to be confusing insurance with welfare. If you are insured for something, you have the right to collect if the event takes place...even if someone else is paying for the insurance. A wealthy friend I know has $2 mil in cash which he has in low risk instruments. I believe he is collecting about $400 per year in interest while the borrower is probably lending it out at a princely rate. So, if my wealthy friend collects unemplyment insurance since he is between gigs, I don't begrudge him. In fact, some wealthy Hollywood types have been known to collect unemployment insurance between roles and then, after collecting, going out to the Beverly Hills restarant of choice for some idle chatter. Now that the checks are likely mailed, they probably order in.

4:03 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

This is the reason Obama gasses on-and-on about "millionaires and billionaires (Though the difference between the two is the difference between a guy with one-dollar in his pocket and a guy with one-thousand dollars)," to begin the process of first denying savers and investors who have lost their jobs thanks to leftist economic policies from first receiving unemployment then moving on to things like Social Security - though we've paid into both our entire lives without receiving one red cent in return.

The next step will be to expropriate private savings, investment and retirement accounts. After all, "millionaires and billionaires" have had an unfair advantage, according to the left. Forget the fact most of them worked their entire lives, saving, investing and taking risks to accumulate what they've EARNED.

Those of you who think you will be overlooked should think again. I know retired factory workers whose net worth is in excess of $500,000 - 1,000,000. Of course, the union pensions will get Obama's infamous "waivers" but, others will not.

Check your own net worth through your financial advisor (If you don't have one, what are you doing reading the WSJ in the first place?) and see if YOU fall into the category of "millionaire." You may be shocked to find you do. "Billionaiires" might be able to forgo unemployment and Social Security. They might even be able to give up a substantial hunk of their portfolios and still live like Obama.

You measly "millionaires" won't be able to.

Second Obama term means expropriation. Bank on it.

4:13 pm October 2, 2012

Master35 wrote:

The payroll tax on income ends at $108,000 so all earned income after that is payroll tax free. So if you make $216,000 you payroll tax is 1/2 of person making $108,000. Another of those little tax breaks for the well to do. If you charge payroll tax on every penny earned from $15,000 to $20 million a lot of the Social Security trust fund disappears.
I can hear the howl now but why is it if I make $107,00 I pay on every dollar but of I double my income I pay 1/2 as much tax!!????

4:13 pm October 2, 2012

FOr Millionaires wrote:

why not get unemployment.. you paid in.

What should be stopped is Medicare. The Medicare Tax only covers 1/3 of the costs. the other 2/3rds is Welfare.

Lets stop that first.

4:15 pm October 2, 2012

Tom in Michigan wrote:

Here’s how these discussions get twisted and used.

“Nearly 2,400 Americans in households with $1 million or more in annual income” are NOT the same as “Americans with $1 million.”

The first group – people who earn more than $1 million annually - would certainly be considered “rich,” by most standards. However, the second group, those WITH a net worth of one million may or may not be rich. Indeed, many of you may not even realize your net worth may be up to one million. Therefore, many of YOU may not realize that you are the targets of such moves by greedy politicians.

This is the first step in denying savers and investors benefits for which they’ve paid their whole lives but who have not received a dime in return.

The next step will be expropriation of private savings and investment accounts of “millionaires and billionaires,” as Obama loves to say. Conflating the two is absurd as the latter is orders of magnitude greater than the former (Obama probably doesn’t know enough math to know that and likely thinks in terms of them having “a whole buncha money” they’ve stolen from others rather than earning through diligence and thrift) but, Obama uses this meme as a way of convincing people they are essentially the same level of wealth.
We need to stop these people now.

I guarantee; first it will unemployment for people worth some arbitrary figure, then Social Security, then Medicare then a raid on private savings and investment accounts – all to pay for even more government waste.

Doubt me? Look at Argentina.

4:28 pm October 2, 2012

g wrote:

Master 35: Your Social Security benefit is capped based on your taxed earnings. So if you want to tax Bill Gates on all of his income for SS purposes, be prepared to write him some very large checks when he retires.

4:35 pm October 2, 2012

slupkes wrote:

Does it really matter what you were making? If you are unemployed, by definition you are not earning an income. So this is really about what you made prior to being laid off....

I am not certain why this is relevant.

4:47 pm October 2, 2012

Saver wrote:

Insurance paid by employers is still insurance, NOT welfare.
The Social Security Retirement system is still a retirement system, NOT wlefare.
Many think those that have done well, worked hard and saved, don't deserve their paid for insurance or retirement payments, those many outnumber us that have saved, so go ahead and be "mean". Lenin was right, Robin Hood is Alive ! Prove it by outvoting savers in November and re-elect "Robin Hood".

5:01 pm October 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

The article fails to consider couple important considerations:
1) You can be a millionaire, if all your wealth is illiquid assets it will do you no good when you need money to pay for daily expenses such as food,
2) Your income can be high, but so are your expenses. Sudden loss of income still leaves you with obligations that you have to honor.

Bottom line - unemployment is an insurance, someone paid for that insurance for "millionaires" and the have as much of the right to use it as person with low income.

5:05 pm October 2, 2012

e c wrote:

I would imagine that comparatively few people who don't need the money apply for unemployment. That's because (and I'm speaking as someone who's gotten benefits twice) the process is a hassle, which I'm sure is deliberate to discourage false claims/fakers. You need to pull together quite a bit of paperwork, document your efforts to find work and have to update your status every week via either a phone call or online form. Most states also do not allow you to leave the state even for a short trip and claim benefits, and in some cases in-person interviews, requiring long waits at unpleasant government offices with many need people, may also be required.

As others have pointed out, these benefits are also capped, so what person with, say, a million in stock assets would bother going through all this for $400 or so a week? Meanwhile, drawing a hard line at a certain income level could end up knocking out a lot of families in legitimate need. In New York where I live, a lot of families earning $175K a year might have little to nothing left over after rent, food and childcare/education costs, and certainly might not have a sufficient emergency fund to weather a really lengthy stretch of unemployment. There are numerous stories about former wall street execs who have ended up losing their homes, etc. after several years out of work.

Add in the fact that afflluent workers' employers did pay into the system and creating a needs test for initial claims seems unfair. I'm not sure if it even makes sense for the extended benefits, since someone who was making a high salary really can't make it on unemployment benefits and is highly motivated to reenter the work force. Those needing to benefit from the extended terms are thus probably really having issues getting work.

5:36 pm October 2, 2012

had enough wrote:

How about if we means test the pensions of the politicians.

5:38 pm October 2, 2012

MFM wrote:

SLC - please remember that the Administration says there is a 1.87 multiplier for welfare versus only .37 for a tax or capital gains cut!

5:57 pm October 2, 2012

Concerned wrote:

Unemployment taxes are paid by the employer and in my state (not sure of all other states) the tax is only paid on a certain amount of wages - the first $19k-20K of wages. So taxes are not being paid on income received by the wealthy. For example if you are making $100k a year, unemployment taxes would only be a percentage of $20k.

6:12 pm October 2, 2012

Jay wrote:

Much has been commented about the semantics of this article and who pays the unemployment insurance taxes. First, what's a millionaire? Is it yearly income or net worth? There's a huge difference. Only an idiot would have a million in a bank for any extended period of time. I'm a millionaire, earn 300K a yr working my butt off. The assets are all tied up in my 401(k), whole life insurance cash redemption values and a little house. Most of it is pre-tax. If I retire in 5 yrs, that amount will have to last 20-25 yrs. I might be able to pull out 50K a year. Aren't I rich? Who wants to marry a millionaire?

I am self-employed physician with several employees. The I pay state and federal unemployment taxes on the first $9,000 of gross salary for each employee in my state at up to almost 8%. It is experience rated. Have one employee leave and it goes way up. In addition, I pay another 6% to the feds on each employee's first $7,000 of salary. So that's a 14% tax on what I pay my employees in addition to the other employment taxes. This comes out of my pocket, not my employees', and I'm paying it with every paycheck for each employee until they've met the state and federal limits. I cannot pass the expense along to the patient as I am limited to what insurance, Medicare and Medicaid pay me. I eat that amount and it's a struggle. When I'm done paying it, I finally have more money to pay our bills. I can't charge my employees for the tax and therefore don't given them a bonus when it is finally paid up. Furthermore, if I close or leave my practice, I don't qualify for any unemployment benefits.

It soon becomes obvious that it makes sense to have as few employees as possible. Since the unemployment tax is not going towards my business, it actually increases the rate of unemployment. If there was zero abuse of the unemployment insurance benefits, the average rate of unemployment would never be less than the average rate of unemployment taxes. Unemployment insurance is another wealth transfer, forced charity in the name of "social justice." It causes unemployment, sustains it. It is obscene.

6:16 pm October 2, 2012

RussRamey6 wrote:

Only a Keynesian economist would say something as foolish as ANY government spending is good...this is why we are 16 TRILLION in debt.

6:16 pm October 2, 2012

Dave wrote:

And it's only taken them 80 years to discover this problem. The Congress and the media are on the top of their game!

6:26 pm October 2, 2012

Janet wrote:

The first thing to do is to figure out the admininstrative cost of means testing and see if ANY money is saved. i suspect it will be very very little.

What will save money in the long run is medicare for all with no copays. It kills me every time I overhear someone paying a $5 copay. That probably costs more to process than the government or insurance company gets.

7:57 pm October 2, 2012

Tom O'Hare wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, or I'm just not as sophisticated as the economists out there. Let me float an idea here. I thought the basic idea of pooling some of our collective wealth as a nation to help out people in need....was to help people in need. We have a progressive tax system (although it is all f---ed up thanks to self-serving public officials selling favors to their constituents)....why can't we have a means tested approach to things like social security benefits and unemployment insurance and federally funded health insurance? Perhaps I am demented, but I think most people of good understand that when you've made it financially you really don't need to be shuffling out to the mail box in your bunny slippers with a highball to pick up a social security check that someone who really needs it could benefit by. Question: why are our public officials so stupid? How did things get this way? What kind of millionaire would say: "'Hell, I paid in all my life, I want my gov't check!'?"

8:05 pm October 2, 2012

GGM wrote:

I suppose that millionaires also shouldn't use their employer paid health insurance benefits either but should just pay out of pocket. Does it occur to no one that most "millionaires" are simply boomer middle class Americans who have been hearing since 1970 that they would need to save at least a million dollars to maintain their lifestyle after retirement. Now you would like them to not only remain unemployed (plenty of studies show that many of this recession's unemployed are over 55 and they account for most of the long term unemployed.) but you want them to have to start spending their retirement savings even earlier than they had planned. And then you get to tax them as they withdraw from that IRA. Talk about adding insult to injury!
Sounds to me like it is about time for some to admit that they view ALL enforced government "insurance schemes" as just another tax to provide cradle to grave lifestyle support for low and no income earners. It also sound like our consumer society is embracing the idea of spending all you make so you won't get penalized for saving. Doesn't sound like a recipe for a healthy society to me, but I'm no economist.

8:13 pm October 2, 2012

Manny wrote:

This is a very unpopular point of view but its call unemployment insurance because they paid into the system so they are eligible to pull from the system when they are indeed unemployed. It is not a means test it is insurance.

And like insurance you don't want them to opt out. You want all kinds of payers into the system to make the system financial solvent. So tell Congress to actually do some work---nothing to see here.

8:16 pm October 2, 2012

Kate Middleton wrote:

Does anyone at the WSJ understand the meaning of the term "social safety net"? Hmmmm? Does safety net suggest the return on an 'investment', or shoring up against, say.... Starvation, Homelessness, and children forced to drop out of school to support impoverished adults, as often happened in the Ayn Randian "glory days"?

9:37 pm October 2, 2012

Joe wrote:

Millionaires paid most of the taxes so 'yes' they should get it when they're unemployed. But if you're not gonna give it to them , then don't make them pay it.

9:43 pm October 2, 2012

WSmith wrote:

Unemplyment is unemployment irrespective of your income. Its insurance which has been paid for. Will government ration air based on some theory. Let's stop the BS!

9:45 pm October 2, 2012

Dpc wrote:

I was laid off by Morgan Stanley in April. I have been collecting unemployment which I use to pay the landscaper, babysitter etc. I really don't need them now that I'm home and I would have laid them off when I got laid off, if I didn't collect unemployment. These people would have had their hours severely cut but would not have received benefits if they had gotten laid off by me. Given what i have paid in taxes, I don't feel bad about this.

9:48 pm October 2, 2012

Dpc wrote:

I was laid off by Morgan Stanley in April. I have been collecting unemployment which I use to pay the landscaper, babysitter etc. I really don't need them now that I'm home and I would have laid them off when I got laid off, if I didn't collect unemployment. These people would have had their hours severely cut by the placement services that employ them but would not have received benefits if they had gotten laid off by me. Given what i have paid in taxes, I don't feel bad about this.

11:13 pm October 2, 2012

truenorth wrote:

It is called "unemployment INSURANCE". The premiums have been paid, so the person is entitled to the claim when they become unemployed. That is why it is called insurance.

Are we going to begin means testing auto insurance claims, too? "Someone wrecked my car. Fortunately I have insurance." "Sorry, you make too much money so you will have to pay for it all yourself. Even though you have been paying for the insurance coverage for years."

Social Security is also known as "social insurance". But even Romney is proposing we "means test" the benefits part of it. "Sorry, that's what you get for being responsible and saving a little extra for your retirement in addition to 40 years of paying premiums into the system: nothing!"

Keep it up lefties and even more of us will drop out. Try paying for your socialist paradise with another few million of us dropping out of the workforce and therefore the tax rolls.

11:59 pm October 2, 2012

Marty wrote:

Should Millionaires be allowed to buy things "on sale"? Won't their purchase deprive some poorer person of the same good at the sale price?

I'm no liberal obama-supporter but I agree that people with assets over a certain amount should not qualify for unemployment benefits while sitting on $100,000s in the bank or investment accounts. I don't care if it's fair or not. This isn't class warfare, it's stark reality. Why should the taxpayers support people who make $500,000 a year who have lost their jobs? Workers pay nothing into a direct unemployment fund; it is funded in part by the employer and state and federal governments. The amount a worker pays in federal income tax that is contributed to the unemployment fund is a mere fraction of what they take out.

6:54 am October 3, 2012

Ex-Apostle of the $USD wrote:

The rich already get an unemployment benefit - It's called the Fed !

8:24 am October 3, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

It is discriminatory to deny millionaires benefits. Payment of unemployment INSURANCE is mandatory. It is not a welfare programs.

8:33 am October 3, 2012

someday wrote:

Unemployment insurance is obsolete. Most people are unemployed involuntarily only a few times in their lives. In between, we should be allowed to put away pre-tax cash into a tax-free account up to a certain lifetime limit - maybe 50K. Tax free withdrawals could be made for unemployment and healthcare while working and could be withdrawn tax free on retirement. For new workers or those who have not accumulated a stash, banks would administer limited amount loans at current interest rates to be paid back by the worker via the IRS upon re-employment. Details to follow :)

9:05 am October 3, 2012

WSW wrote:

Where's my check!

9:27 am October 3, 2012

Surfinfinity wrote:

How many workers suddenly find new work on the 100th week following their layoff.... just curious...

9:36 am October 3, 2012

BigK wrote:

In reply to Additional Unfairness: I experienced exactly what you said. I had a one person consulting company for four years (an S Corp), and had to pay unemployment on wages to myself. When business dried up with the recession, I had to shut it down to eliminate overhead losing money. But, even though the tax had been paid on my employment, a could not collect. the state said it was "my choice" What garbage. As an individual operator owner, I was able to opt out of disability, and a number of other state crutches, and I would have opted out of unemployment also, but it was not allowed. They got 4% insurance premium on my wages, and I could not collect the benefit. I even went to an administrative hearing with a judge about it, and he back up the theives in state government!!! Insurance premiums paid mean benefits collected, if not, call it something else.

9:36 am October 3, 2012

JohnB wrote:

Interesting, they talk about the "administrative cost" of cutting benefits for the rich.....they never seem to have a problem with "administrative cost" when cutting benefits for the poor and middle class.

10:16 am October 3, 2012

Mimi wrote:

Absolutely. Millionaires should get every bit of the insurance for which they paid. I think it is ridiculous that we give so much to people that show no evidence of ever being able to contribute back to the system from which they take. I think you should have to show progress to get aid. After 21, you should have to have a high school diploma to collect aid or at least prove that you are progressing towards it so that I know that you may be employable and not illiterate and unmotivated.

10:50 am October 3, 2012

Stop Being a Republican, Mimi! wrote:

No, Mimi. You're wrong. Individuals do not pay for unemployment insurance. Employer groups, the companies, do. Moreover, the wealthy don't need this money. So no, there's no reason for millionaries to receive unemployment.

11:09 am October 3, 2012

Richie RIch wrote:

I got your check WSW right here,

A new report shows that some 2,400 millionaires received unemployment insurance benefits during the economic downturn, a number that has caught the attention of politicians who funded extensions of benefits for up to 99 weeks as the economy crumbled.

In 2009, 2,362 millionaires received unemployment benefits, down from 2,840 the year prior, according to a study from the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan arm of U.S. Congress that provides policy and legal analysis. Of the 2,362 more than 1,000 receiving unemployment benefits had a household adjusted gross income of $1.5 million in 2009.

The report titled "Receipt of Unemployment Insurance by Higher-Income Unemployed Workers" found that 0.02 percent of tax filers that received unemployment benefits in 2009 were millionaires. A total of $20.8 million in unemployment benefits went to this group.

"It sounds scandalous when you hear that millionaires are going to collect unemployment insurance," Bill Frenzel, guest scholar at the Brookings Institute and former Republican member of Congress, told ABC News. "On the other hand, millionaires get unemployed too and have made payments into the unemployment insurance."

In 2010, 4.6 million people were kept out of poverty due to unemployment benefits, according to the Center on the Budget and Policy Priorities.

Frenzel says if they made a million dollars in income the year prior, "they could probably stand being barred from unemployment this year."

And, apparently one member of Congress agrees.

"Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending. Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt," Republican Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. of Oklahoma said in a statement to ABC News. Based on the report from the Senator's office, millionaires received $74 million in unemployment insurance from 2005 to 2009.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the average individual collects about $300 per week from unemployment compensation.

Early last year, Sen. Coburn introduced " Ending Unemployment to Jobless Millionaires Act of 2011," which is currently languishing in the House of Representatives, a bill which sought to halt payment of federal funds for unemployment compensation to individuals whose "resources in the preceding year" was $1 million or more.

But millionaires aren't the only individuals to benefit from unemployment benefits. A few other high-income brackets receive compensation from the government. More than 8,000 tax filers making $500,000 to $1,000,000 received unemployment benefit income in 2009 and more than 900,000 tax filers that made $100,000 to $500,000 received unemployment benefit income.

11:15 am October 3, 2012

The Undertaker wrote:

Ex- Apostle, very funny blog and it hurts for a dead guy to laugh. The bailout bombing FED is your sugar Daddy millionaires. Richie Rich you had a good blog too. Audit and abolish the criminal foreign owned NWO globalist FED yesterday

11:19 am October 3, 2012

GLJ wrote:

Why shouldn;t they? They paid into like everyone else.

11:40 am October 3, 2012

Bwin wrote:

I plan on collecting my social security benefits as soon as I am eligible even though I am lucky enough to not need them. Why? I'm planning on donating the monthly sums to my favorite charitable causes. Included could be scholarships for higher education whose funding is as fragile as ever. I've participated in our system for decades, and I plan on participating within the boundaries of the law as long as I can.

12:13 pm October 3, 2012

Ex-Apostle of the $USD wrote:

Food Stamps for Millionaires are called: Federal Reserve Notes... The rich get their hands on those newly printed notes practically for free and "put money to work" to drive up the most basic cost of living thanks to Bernanke who believes this favoritism stabilizes the economy.

12:21 pm October 3, 2012

Sully wrote:

"Finally, from an economist’s point of view, any government spending, whether it’s on safety-net-related benefits, military contracts or new infrastructure, is helpful because it technically boosts GDP growth"

Presumably economists would also approve if the government were to pay the unemployed to break windows since that would technically boost GDP growth due to both the wasteful spending and due to the replacement of the windows.

12:34 pm October 3, 2012

Ted Webber wrote:

When the rich get caught in a scam they cry the letter of the law they should receive., when the poor get something the rich want whatever they get eliminated and call them welfare parasites.

12:46 pm October 3, 2012

Obama wrote:

Only if they're democrats , then it's OK

12:47 pm October 3, 2012

OWS wrote:

Ted Webber ..." please , make it a cheesburger with large fries "

12:53 pm October 3, 2012

wiseguy wrote:

Simple equation:

No benefit = No premium payment (by employer or employee).

Which part you don't understand?

1:15 pm October 3, 2012

Fema gift for you wrote:

What is the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Simply put, it is the "secret government". This agency has powers and authority that go well beyond any other agency in the nation. What can FEMA do? It can suspend laws. It can move entire populations. It can arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and can hold them without a trial. It can seize property, food supplies, and transportation systems. And it can even suspend the Constitution of the United States.

When the first concept had been presented, its original mission was to assure the survivability of the United States Government in the event of a nuclear attack. It's secondary function was to be a Federal coordinating body during times of domestic disasters. These disasters consisted of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes.

The "secret" black helicopters that are reported throughout the US, mainly in the West California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado areas are flown by FEMA personnel. It has been given the responsibility for many new national disasters such as forest fires, home heating emergencies, refugee situations, riots, and emergency planning for nuclear and toxic incidents. It works together with the Sixth Army in the West.

A series of Executive Orders (EO) was used to create FEMA. It does not matter whether an EO is Constitutional or not, it becomes a law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. These orders go around Congress.

Civilian Inmate Program - US Army Regulation 210_35

The Cabal Capalists and the Agenda for Genocide

US MARINE DRILL SERGEANT BOASTS OF WHAT THEY WILL DO TO CIVILIANS UNDER MARTIAL LAW IN THE USA/MONTANA

I am still kinda reeling from what a US Marine admitted to me in a long conversation...a crack US Marine drill sergeant with 12 years of professional training and being a trainer in the Marines. He specialized in hardening them to win (ie-fire on women and children wherever appropriate, "show no mercy" etc.)

He CONFIRMED lots of things to me to me I already knew, and revealed lots of new things to me.

HE ADMITTED (actually, BOASTED would be more appropriate) that there were INDEED PRISONER BOXCARS PREPOSITIONED EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT MONTANA where I interviewed him(and nationwide)...that the military has properly assessed the civilian resistance/militia threat under martial law, and hence had everything in place for a military takeover USING US MARINES HEAVILY.

Quote:
"WHY do you THINK that they have the Marines in place in Billings, Montana, " he bragged. He explained that MARINES would be used most heavily in Montana(and NATIONWIDE) under martial law...and he was evidently quite proud of their role. He admitted they had been hardened to kill...and that killing women and children would be a part of their agenda wherever deemed necessary.

WHY? He said that under a state of war or martial law, it is a known fact that women can be used and even children to convey information to"the enemy." (OR to combat US forces.)

He shared then how many men in his platoon stationed overseas had been killed or hurt because a Marine refused his orders, to fire on an eight year old child. The child was suspected to be a courier for the Mujahideen, transporting information about Marine logistics and whereabouts,to the Moslems they were fighting. And as a result of enemy information getting thru, many men in his platoon were injured or killed by resultant Moslem attack.

Quote:
"The child may not have even known what he was transporting," the Marine told me, "But the damage to our men occurred regardless...all because one man refused his orders and failed to take out this threat..."

We discussed the BOXCARS AND SHACKLES and MILITARY DETENTION CAMPS under MARTIAL LAW issue. A knowing smile broke out on his face as I described to him my research on future MARTIAL LAW and the role of PRISONER BOXCARS WITH SHACKLES.

When I mentioned how my research on this subject brought me to the HIGHLINE (the railroad tracks that run parallel to HIGHWAY 2 in northern Montana) and northern Montana, he admitted...

Quote:
"The boxcars are NOT just up there...we have them spread out ALL OVER MONTANA...Billings...Bozeman..." He went on to name city after city in Montana.

TERMINATION IN THE PRISONER BOXCARS, MARINE STYLE-
"LIKE SHEEP LED TO SLAUGHTER"

We discussed what would happen ONCE people were arrested under martial law and brought into these boxcars. MARINE style.

Quote:
He said, "In many cases they won't even waste a bullet on them. MANY WILL NEVER REACH THE CAMPS ALIVE. They have this thing we called a 'staple gun'..." I asked him to elaborate. "This 'gun' shoots out a long metal rod that hits another piece of metal...they just hold that to someone's head like a gun and...."

He was in fact describing a STUN GUN, the same kind used to stun cattle and sheep in slaughterhouses prior to processing.

I understood. With the same effect that a BULLET THRU THE HEAD, favored by military for dispatching people under such circumstances, would have. Only THIS way, the American people will become LIKE SHEEP LED TO SLAUGHTER...literally.

nd like dumb sheep led to slaughter, civilians arrested under martial law are not even considered worth the cost of a bullet...

We discussed various LISTS or status of people, once arrested, under MARTIAL LAW would have. You know, like FEMA RED-BLUE lists, etc.

He responded by admitting that FEMA WAS ONLY A FRONT FOR SUCH OPERATIONS, and that IN FACT IT WOULD BE THE US MILITARY (with foreign troop assistance, UN/NATO/Pfp etc.,) OPERATING THE BOXCARS AND DEATHCAMPS.

He said that the Marines had their RED FLAGGED people and BLACK FLAGGED people. When people come up RED FLAG on their computerized list, it is a person that will be arrested and taken to military camps, but may be "salvageable" (or can be rehabilitated, re-educated, etc.)

But when people come up BLACK FLAGGED, they will be arrested and PUT TO DEATH.
NO questions asked.

Quote:
"When taking captives under MARTIAL LAW, we might even use a black flagged person who is going to die anyhow, and MAKE THEM AN EXAMPLE TO THE OTHER PEOPLE WE ARREST TO NOT MESS WITH US AND COOPERATE...by executing that person in front of the others...a form of CONTROL THRU FEAR."

WHY THE US MILITARY IN IRAQ-A Marine Explains

I discussed my loathing for the reports we were now receiving from IRAQ, about even young girls and teens being arrested indiscriminately, tortured and sodomized, raped, etc.

Quote:
He replied, "You have to understand the logistics of WAR and what is happening there. Since the US soldiers are surrounded with people (Iraqis) and the enemy in many cases is THE UNKNOWN, that have to have ways to flush them out.

By randomly selecting civilians to interrogate through torture and other means, and then releasing them, they are hoping that when that person who has been roughed up returns to their home or friends, it will provoke them (enemy combatants) into such anger and retaliation that they are FLUSHED OUT INTO THE OPEN so we can deal with them and know who the enemy really is."

He also admitted it creates FEAR in the people towards the occupying army, so that they will hesitate to rebel.

In light of coming MARTIAL LAW, which he admitted WOULD COME DOWN IN AMERICA, I discussed my theory that THE US MILITARY THAT IS BEING HARDENED THROUGH SUCH PRACTICES IN IRAQ TODAY, will be the ones brought home to PERFORM THE SAME TASKS AGAINST THE US CIVILIANS IN THE FUTURE UNDER MARTIAL LAW.

MARINE MENTALITY-FIRING UPON WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT COMMAND-

He did not deny this. And when I mentioned my concern over whether or not they could get our own US troops to fire upon America citizens, even women and children, he explained to me the MARINE MENTALITY.

Quote:
"These Marines have been hardened to KILL UPON COMMAND. They have been taught to NOT QUESTION THE ORDERS OF THEIR SUPERIORS OR COMMANDING OFFICER. THEY WILL KILL WHOEVER AND WHENEVER THEY ARE COMMANDED TO. " He let me know that concepts of MERCY or COMPASSION are diametrically opposed to WAR and military mentality.

He had trained men himself in the Marines, and admitted he was one of those people hardening OTHER Marines to kill without regret or conscience...even under MARTIAL LAW IN AMERICA.

MILITARY STRATEGY UNDER MARTIAL LAW USA-

We then discussed WEAPONS OF WAR. I fully admitted to him my position in the upcoming MARTIAL LAW holocaust. It was SAFE: we were on neutral ground and martial law has not been declared here YET.

I then discussed my honest assessment, however, of Patriot/civilian resistance. Coming from the kind of military background family I do, I had a much more realistic assessment of modern military might versus civilian resistance. I said,

Quote:
"I always give a salvation message at the end of each radio broadcast I give on the subject of MARTIAL LAW SHOWDOWN...I let the Patriot militias out there know that while I admire their intentions as they stand up for freedom and against the NWO, they frankly have no realistic concept of how highly armed and trained and prepared the military forces of the NWO really are...and that a lot of these good folks are going to factually die with what is coming down when they offer resistance... SO I tell them, 'at LEAST ensure yourselves the ULTIMATE VICTORY of knowing you have ETERNAL LIFE thru Jesus Christ in case you die....and many of you WILL END UP IN HELL should they take you out WITHOUT CHRIST...so GET RIGHT WITH GOD NOW."

He smiled and said, "That's why we Marines have a saying that we will take 'em out and LET GOD SORT 'EM!"

He went on to describe the newer weapons the US military had developed to be used against civilian resistance. Grenades that have caustic substances that when exploded, will eat away any CHEM/BIO BODY SUIT that a r

1:36 pm October 3, 2012

May I Opt Out? wrote:

I'll gladly forgo my SS and Unemployment, if I can opt out of paying into either of them. My money is just as green as the next guy's, so as long as I'm paying into, I'd better damn straight get it.

1:54 pm October 3, 2012

Praise Teachers wrote:

Thank you for your comments, wiseguy. I use them to contract the difference between Democrats' recognition of problem complexity and the wide range of options available to potentially solve it and the Republican tendency to over-simplify a problem right down to an either-or choice (e.g., "it's black or white;" "you're either with us or against us") and the concomitant lack of viable options available to solve a complex problem.

I guess the Republicans need to speak to the intelligence of their audience.

4:35 pm October 3, 2012

Dor wrote:

Unemployment benefits should never have been extended in the first place. Those unemployed in dire need have other avenues they could have turned to. Extending it was just another vote buying political ploy that has burdened the taxpayers to repay money given to many who did not need it. We do also have a BIG underground economy that no one pays attention to.

10:37 pm October 3, 2012

Razr wrote:

Mitt Romney would make a good president, Hmm on Mars or Venus, perhaps on Pluto. Obama is rich and so is super rich Warren Buffet, but why would they even consider giving themselves higher tax hikes and for every other rich American as well. Well it seems as though they want to pay their fair share of taxes and help our economy grow. I think if I were rich I would vote for Romney but then again if I knew hundreds of other rich people that were willing to do the same as Obama and Buffet I sure wouldn't want to look like a jerk, so I would bite my lip behind close doors and welcome it with the rest of my friends and say to them "Lets make a toast, to Higher Taxes For Us....The Rich, The Valiant, and The Virtuous Who Really care About Fairness" then I would go home to save face later after the festivities and cry, because I endorsed higher taxes for my own Income Bracket. Damn lucky I'm not rich so I guess I'll vote for Obama

9:28 am October 4, 2012

opting out wrote:

Anyone paying in (and noone has a choice in the matter) has a right to collect unemployment if and when that happens. Period.

5:34 pm October 4, 2012

davebehrens wrote:

If I had to pay into unemployment insurance, then I will collect unemployment insurance.

10:32 am October 5, 2012

KO wrote:

Why are we worrying about $20million when the IRS has paid out at least $30billion in fraudulent tax refunds this year alone.

7:19 pm October 5, 2012

Terry Jacks wrote:

I have a associate (U.S. ctiizen) that worked for Arthur Anderson overseas for awhile and then moved back to the U.S.A. and was receiving pay from overseas but filed for unemployment here in Florida and was collecting it at the same time !

11:56 pm October 6, 2012

shelley wrote:

All I have heard from Romney is how 47% of the country are victims and will NEVER take responsiblity for their own lives. If people remember when he was going around the country, speaking to them he said, while setting at a table with people, " I should tell my story. I'm also unemployeed." He just laughed and laughed like it was so funny. It makes you wonder, does Mitt recieve unemployment? All the while the Republicans would
not give the rest of us that REALLY NEED IT TO SURVIVE DAY TO DAY another nickel of unemployment benefits.

12:13 pm October 8, 2012

Jerry G wrote:

OK, this drives me crazy: When was the word "millionaire" redefined as a reference to income rather than net worth? It seems that since the 99-percenters drew their line in the sand and began using the term incorrectly, everyone else, including the usually erudite Wall Street Journal, has followed. I know many millionaires (using the correct definition) who would absolutely need to tap unempoyment benefits if they lost their jobs.

7:45 pm October 8, 2012

B wrote:

"...this cash would be better used in other government programs to help those who actually need it."

Read as, because you save money, you don't deserve the same rights as others. Damn you for being responsible and not throwing your money away on things you clearly can't afford.

12:17 pm October 9, 2012

dlmReport wrote:

How about a story "Should business owners get unemployment?" As-is, we don't. I've been on my own payroll since 2003. Every check includes a payment for unemployment insurance. However, as owner of the business, should it fail, I'm not "entitled" to a dime. Here's the deal: If you pay for something, you should be treated the same. I would be in favor of having the unemployment deduction waived for the HUGE number of we small biz owners that are paying for something we'll never see.

1:59 pm October 17, 2012

tbd13.0 wrote:

Ok, let's get real. Any household making $200K or more does not need government assistance, EBT or UI. Furthermore, households making $200K or more and collecting benefits ARE NOT helping GDP growth. They already have enough money to buy the things they WANT or NEED. The government checks are just helping them SAVE or ACCUMULATE more investments. And, before somebody points out an investment is stimulating the economy.......1. that is not the intent of the benefits, they are a safety net and should be treated as such AND 2. QE Infinity is already handling that.

So, enough of the insane rationalization of these benefits AND start using them for what they intended and only what they are intended.

99 weeks of unemployment = INSANE

Put the safety net back to the proper number of weeks and stop the QE. Make the Economy work properly again.

2:14 pm October 17, 2012

Richie Notrich wrote:

Just another distraction and split the people against each other play.
If anyone paid into it, they should be paid out of it, period. Same rules for all is good, no?
Now if the laws were changed so those with some assets were disqualified, do you think it
would become any easier for those without assets, and with pressing needs, to qualify?
Of course not, the money "saved" would just be wasted away or disappear. Now add in the
possibility of an "asset check" as part of the qualification process, and many would starve or become homeless before they received any asssitance. The program is inhumane and almost useless as is, why change it?

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Real Time Economics

Real Time Economics offers exclusive news, analysis and commentary on the U.S. and global economy, central bank policy and economics. Send news items, comments and questions to the editors and reporters below or email realtimeeconomics@wsj.com.